Face
Administrator
Face
Joined: Dec 27, 2010
  • Threads: 49
  • Posts: 4448
September 3rd, 2013 at 1:07:24 PM permalink
Quote: tuttigym

Face, you too, are factually challenged regarding BB's weight.

1986-1990 BB's listed weight was 185
1991-1996 BB's listed weight was 190
1997-1998 BB's listed weight was 206
1999-2000 BB's listed weight was 210
2001-2007 BB's listed weight was 228

He was never 170 lbs or 240 lbs.

Furthermore, you or anyone else, to my knowledge, cannot breakdown his body fat content during those years.

The reference material quoted is from a site called the Evolution of Barry Bonds.

The only thing that is "pretty simple" is your inability to relay the straight scoop.

tuttigym



Was it this exchange that gave it away?...

Quote: tuttigym

Your assumptions are strictly guesswork with absolutely no science to back it up.



Quote: Face

Well, at least we agree on something =)



Yes, I admit it. The weights I supplied were part guess work, part exageration. I'm the last person here who should be talking baseball, as I find it... let's just say "unappealing".

Bonds was little. Then he got big. More balls went deep when he was big. He got big by PEDs. Therefore...

Why so serious? =)
The opinions of this moderator are for entertainment purposes only.
tuttigym
tuttigym
Joined: Feb 12, 2010
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 594
September 3rd, 2013 at 1:18:31 PM permalink
Quote: Beardgoat

In 1990 when bonds won his first MVP and including the 4 years through 1994 he was hitting a home run every 13.8 at bats. He won 3 mvp in this time period and was one of the best hitters of his era.... In 2000 - 2004 when it was fairly obvious he was cheating, he was hitting home runs every 8.2 at bats. That is substantially higher.



You need to tell the REST OF THE STORY.

BB's Plate Appearances vs AB

2000: 607 vs 480
2001: 664 vs 476
2002: 612 vs 403
2003: 550 vs 390
2004: 617 vs 373
2005 did not play much
2006: 493 vs 367
2007: 477 vs 340

As you well know, he was so feared as a hitter; he was walked. The stats are therefore a bit skewed and only conjecture might be used to determine the real HR/AB's.

tuttigym
TomG
TomG
Joined: Sep 26, 2010
  • Threads: 15
  • Posts: 2339
September 3rd, 2013 at 1:35:27 PM permalink
Quote: tuttigym

Again, there is NO science to back up the claim that weight training increases the type of "strength" that might elevate bat speed,



Just because you are too lazy to find it, does not mean it doesn't exist. Typing "Steroid effect on bat speed" into a google search took me about 20 seconds to find scientific literature explaining exactly how much steroids can effect muscle power, bat speed, distance on batted balls, and home run totals.

http://ajp.aapt.org/resource/1/ajpias/v76/i1/p15_s1?isAuthorized=no

http://baseball.physics.illinois.edu/BRJ-Steroids-v3.pdf

Further, we can also use media reports, The Mitchell Report and other sources to identify when players started their drug regimen, then compare home run totals to before and after. Do you refuse to do that because you are too lazy or because you only want to be annoying and don't care to offer anything insightful or meaningful?
TomG
TomG
Joined: Sep 26, 2010
  • Threads: 15
  • Posts: 2339
September 3rd, 2013 at 1:40:22 PM permalink
Quote: tuttigym

As you well know, he was so feared as a hitter; he was walked. The stats are therefore a bit skewed and only conjecture might be used to determine the real HR/AB's.



What the hell are you talking about? Walks are good things for the offensive team. If Bonds had higher walk totals in the years he was using drugs, that is even more proof he was doing good things for his team when he was on drugs.

In absolutely no way is that conjecture
tuttigym
tuttigym
Joined: Feb 12, 2010
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 594
September 3rd, 2013 at 2:22:35 PM permalink
Quote: TomG

Just because you are too lazy to find it, does not mean it doesn't exist. Typing "Steroid effect on bat speed" into a google search took me about 20 seconds to find scientific literature explaining exactly how much steroids can effect muscle power, bat speed, distance on batted balls, and home run totals.

http://ajp.aapt.org/resource/1/ajpias/v76/i1/p15_s1?isAuthorized=no

http://baseball.physics.illinois.edu/BRJ-Steroids-v3.pdf

Further, we can also use media reports, The Mitchell Report and other sources to identify when players started their drug regimen, then compare home run totals to before and after. Do you refuse to do that because you are too lazy or because you only want to be annoying and don't care to offer anything insightful or meaningful?



Actually TomG I am currently trying to have a dialogue with Dr. Alan M. Nathan regarding Tobins "research" and Nathan's "affirmation" paper. If you have read both "studies," with an open and questioning mind, you should be able to ferret out some major flaws. The biggest flaw is simply the giant leap of faith linking steroids to hitting HRs.

Tobin's "study" shows none of that. It only points out that a 10% increase in "muscle mass" MIGHT lead to a 50% increase in bat speed. Another major flaw is that Tobin is convinced that ONLY "muscle mass" can increase bat speed.

I wrote to Dr. Nathan stating that since Tobin was sure HRs are "strength" related that either he or Tobin had the absolute obligation to answer the two questions posed at the top of this thread. To date, he has not provided those answers.

Please note that the authors of these studies use the vaguest of terminology in their presentations, i.e., "Possible Effect." There is no science only speculation and guesswork.

You might find this interesting. In Nathan's paper, he estimates that a batter with a bat speed of just 70 mph hitting an 85 mph fastball at an angle of 30-35 degrees will hit the ball "close to 400 ft." I believe most ML pitchers throw a great deal faster than that and the vast majority of players have a bat speed in excess of 70 mph. If Nathan is correct, then ANY player should be able to hit at least 40 or more HR's in a season, because according to both Tobin and Nathan, "muscle mass" is the ONLY ingredient necessary for HR production.

tuttigym
TomG
TomG
Joined: Sep 26, 2010
  • Threads: 15
  • Posts: 2339
September 3rd, 2013 at 2:50:14 PM permalink
Quote: tuttigym

Actually TomG I am currently trying to have a dialogue with Dr. Alan M. Nathan regarding Tobins "research" and Nathan's "affirmation" paper. If you have read both "studies," with an open and questioning mind, you should be able to ferret out some major flaws. The biggest flaw is simply the giant leap of faith linking steroids to hitting HRs.

Tobin's "study" shows none of that. It only points out that a 10% increase in "muscle mass" MIGHT lead to a 50% increase in bat speed. Another major flaw is that Tobin is convinced that ONLY "muscle mass" can increase bat speed.



I must ask again, what the hell are you talking about?

1) it is an academic paper, not a study

2) the paper says things far different than you think it does. The claim is that a 5% increase in bat speed can lead to 50% more home runs -- eg 35 meters per second to 36.75 meters per second will add enough distance to the median fly ball to increase home runs per year from 20 to 30

The author of the paper explains very clearly that the changes in muscle power and bat speed are caused by steroids are only rough estimates. The information from players who have actually picked up a bat fully supports that that the estimate is completely accurate

The physics has been peer reviewed and I can't find anyone who disagrees with either the method or the results (except, perhaps, you, who is disagreeing with things the author never wrote "50% increase in bat speed")
tuttigym
tuttigym
Joined: Feb 12, 2010
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 594
September 3rd, 2013 at 5:48:54 PM permalink
Quote: TomG

I must ask again, what the hell are you talking about?

1) it is an academic paper, not a study

2) the paper says things far different than you think it does. The claim is that a 5% increase in bat speed can lead to 50% more home runs -- eg 35 meters per second to 36.75 meters per second will add enough distance to the median fly ball to increase home runs per year from 20 to 30

The author of the paper explains very clearly that the changes in muscle power and bat speed are caused by steroids are only rough estimates. The information from players who have actually picked up a bat fully supports that that the estimate is completely accurate

The physics has been peer reviewed and I can't find anyone who disagrees with either the method or the results (except, perhaps, you, who is disagreeing with things the author never wrote "50% increase in bat speed")



It is a "paper" or "study" that is suppose to be science to "prove" that steroids are a direct casual link to increased bat speed through increased "strength." The "study" provides a hypothesis and then goes to prove the hypothesis with a "logical" progression of "proofs." In my correspondence to Nathan, he does NOT dispute my inferences. Therefore, somehow, it seems, that you and others consider it science and proof positive that steroids can create more "strength" or muscle mass to develop more bat speed. The study infers that the ONLY ingredient for bat speed is muscle mass. When Nathan was asked exactly that, he did not deny my interpretation, and brother, he is absolutely wrong.

There is no denying that increased bat speed for whatever percentage could lead to more home runs, but at the same time, the faster the pitch, the lower bat speed is required to propel the sphere the same distance. That is why Nathan came up with his calculations above to which he admitted the same.

tuttigym
Mosca
Mosca
Joined: Dec 14, 2009
  • Threads: 180
  • Posts: 3823
September 3rd, 2013 at 6:12:11 PM permalink
In February 2010 tuttigym started an argument that the 1.41% house advantage on pass line bets was a hoax.., not that it was wrong, but that it was a hoax.

That topic has lasted until July of this year, and has gone FIFTY ONE PAGES. Not arguing the effects of PEDs, but arguing that arithmetic is a hoax.

Why anyone would think that this topic would be any different is beyond me.
NO KILL I
boymimbo
boymimbo
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5994
September 3rd, 2013 at 9:43:42 PM permalink
Sigh, as usual.

Of course, anabolic steroids increase muscle strength by encouraging new muscle growth. Essentially, taking anabolic steroid increases the production of proteins and they also block the effects of cortisol which breaks down muscle. It allows you to keep muscle mass longer and enables the proteins to build more muscle mass at an accelerated rate. What does this mean? Less workout time, more muscle mass. And there are plenty of medical research that shows this. Given the use by athletes and weightlifters in the Olympics before they became illegal to use in competition, its effects are obvious.

Now, does increased muscle mass result in increased bat speed? Of course it does. While bat mass has a minor effect on distance, it is primarily the speed of the bat and the smooth transfer of momentum from the ball to the bat that causes home runs to be hit. Each mph in bat speed increases the potential distance of a ball by 8 feet.

And muscles = power, obviously. The ability to swing a bat and to transfer your body mass into a forward motion is dependent on strength = power = muscle.

There is a reason why Bonds, McGuire, and A-Rod are not going to the hall of fame -- they used banned substances in order to get a performance enhancement over everyone else and to make millions of dollars.

Of course, baseball players have a degree of talent. Melky Cabrera has talent, not to hit .346 anymore as a San Francisco Giant before his suspension for PED use, but as a .280 hitter (and ZERO power in a HR friendly park) for the Blue Jays with a bum leg, AAAA caliber at best. There's a live example of pre-and-post PED use. And of course, each person will have different results.

It would be very difficult to produce and create a controlled study based on human participants to see how far each person could hit based on steroid, but the lack of existence of such a study does not make it a hoax.
----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
TomG
TomG
Joined: Sep 26, 2010
  • Threads: 15
  • Posts: 2339
September 3rd, 2013 at 10:27:39 PM permalink
Quote: tuttigym

In my correspondence to Nathan, he does NOT dispute my inferences ... When Nathan was asked exactly that, he did not deny my interpretation, and brother, he is absolutely wrong.



Of course there was no dispute, nor denial. He realized right away you were asking stupid questions and chose not to engage in any discussion about this foolishness. He's a lot smarter than I am

  • Jump to: